The Court dismissed three petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a serious assault case involving allegations of conspiracy and severe injury to the complainant, refusing bail due to the grave and serious nature of the charges.
Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/29TH KARTHIKA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 6742 of 2014
CRIME NO. 644/2014 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAJITH A.V., S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT AYYATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, AKILANAM, CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O., PERINGODE (VIA), PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 535.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED FOR S.I OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-11-2014, ALONG WITH BA. 6743/2014, BA. 7595/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
========================
B.A. Nos.6742, 6744 & 7595 of 2014 ========================
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2014
O R D E R
Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.644 of 2014 of Chalissery Police Station. Petitioner in B.A.No.6742
of 2014 is A1, petitioner in B.A.No.6744 of 2014 is A2 and petitioners in B.A.No.7595 of 2014 are A3 to A6 in the said crime. The crime has been registered for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 308, 506(1) and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
BA Nos.6742, 6744 & 7595/2014
: 2 :
alleged that, the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy in front of the Guruvayur Temple on one day and at other places on subsequent days, and they have decided to exterminate the defacto complainant. In order to settle scores with the defacto complainant, A1 and A2 engaged A3 to A6 to do away with the defacto complainant. Consequently, it is alleged that on 25.08.2014 at 8.45 p.m., A3 to A6 came by two motorbikes, and obstructed the defacto complainant who was coming by his car at a place called Pallipadam. He was severely attacked with a sword and iron pipes, thereby he sustained fracture of the bones of both his hands and sustained other various serious injuries. The windscreen of the car was smashed, thereby the defacto complainant sustained a wrongful loss of ₹6,000/-.
BA Nos.6742, 6744 & 7595/2014
: 3 :
In the result, these bail applications are dismissed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
DSV/20/11
// True Copy // P.A. To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused apprehending arrest in a serious assault case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SAJITH A.V.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
